Clarification on "Citation Rule"

[Stephen.R]

if I'm in the mood to be picky

I'm glad we're in agreement on the root cause of the original report.

 

[icanhazmac]

Again, the word prevent doesn’t imply a 100% success rate. You are imposing that meaning upon it yourself.

Cheap and convenient word play!

In my opinion most reasonable people would say that if they are told "X will prevent Y" that this is intended as an absolute statement, not one to be quantified by percentages or they should have been included in the original statement such as "X will prevent Y 87% of the time". YMMV.

 

[SuperMatt]

I never asked for its removal, I asked for a citation, there is a difference. If someone is so closed mined and triggered by the opinions of others that they need to block them I cannot be held responbsible for the unintended consequenses.

You just stated above that you would not ask for moderation on your hypothetical examples worded the exact same way. Which is it? Are you saying that your example statements are intended to be statements of fact that need citations?

 

[SuperMatt]

Cheap and convenient word play!

In my opinion most reasonable people would say that if they are told "X will prevent Y" that this is intended as an absolute statement, not one to be quantified by percentages or they should have been included in the original statement such as "X will prevent Y 87% of the time". YMMV.

There is nothing cheap nor convenient here. If we’re talking about the citation rule, and reporting posts which could result in somebody losing their post or their posting privileges, it’s quite important to be very specific about the meaning of words. If one accuses another of making a false claim, the wording becomes very important. What exactly is the person claiming?

 

[TiggrToo]

I never asked for its removal, I asked for a citation, there is a difference. If someone is so closed mined and triggered by the opinions of others that they need to block them I cannot be held responbsible for the unintended consequenses.

Who said you are?

This is not your fault.

This is a Macrumors problem.

However you now seem to be very defensive. Why is that?

And, by the way, when reporting a post is is widely assumed (IMHO) that the reporter is requesting the post to be edited or removed. As a result of which the moderators are then able to further decide if this warrents further action.

Accusing people of using the ignore feature provided for AND recommended by the moderators and site administration of being "closed minded and triggered" is, quite frankly, rather insulting.

 

[I7guy]

In response to this write-up, I would like to say the following:

Is NOT the same as:


The 2nd poster has asked the first to support a claim that the first poster never made. Please see my other post about the “generic you” for explanation.

IMO, it’s all well and good to say after the fact the apparent differences between the verbiage. I would have taken the original verbiage to be a statement of fact, not an opinion…which is now what this thread has morphed into.

 

[icanhazmac]

You just stated above that you would not ask for a citation on the examples worded the exact same way. Which is it?

Reading is fundamental.... I never said that, what I said was:

I generally am not in favor of censorship, I would more likely challenge the statements versus request they be deleted.

One can challenge a post in several ways: I could ask the OP for citation, I could present a competing bit of information, I could down vote it, etc. I generally don't want things removed unless they are clearly violating the rules.

 

[icanhazmac]

Accusing people of using the ignore feature provided for AND recommended by the moderators and site administration of being "closed minded and triggered" is, quite frankly, rather insulting.

So I assume you found this insulting as well?

The takeaway here is that a user can troll you incessantly, you put them on ignore, they sandbag you with a post and then report you.

If so please report it.

 

[SuperMatt]

Reading is fundamental.... I never said that, what I said was:



One can challenge a post in several ways: I could ask the OP for citation, I could present a competing bit of information, I could down vote it, etc.

So you think it’s a statement of fact? Only statements of fact require a citation. You gave a number of hypothetical statements worded in the same way. Do you consider those hypothetical statements to be statements of fact the way they are worded?

"everyone you talk to says masks don't work"
"everyone you talk to says vaccines cause autism"
"everyone you talk to says the election was rigged"
"everyone you talk to says climate change is fake news"

 

[I7guy]

There is nothing cheap nor convenient here. If we’re talking about the citation rule, and reporting posts which could result in somebody losing their post or their posting privileges, it’s quite important to be very specific about the meaning of words. If one accuses another of making a false claim, the wording becomes very important. What exactly is the person claiming?

Yes and it’s in the op best interest to ensure what they are saying is clear…no matter the phraseology.

 

[SuperMatt]

Yes and it’s in the op best interest to ensure what they are saying is clear…no matter the phraseology.

The English language is quite clear in this case. I encourage you to read about the “generic you” I posted earlier. Read that, and it is beyond obvious that: 1. @ericgtr12 was using this form and 2. this form is a generalized statement, not a claim of fact.

The second poster misconstrued the original poster’s statement, created a straw man version of it, and attacked that. The moderators then moderated the original post based on the straw man.

There was a very popular TV show in the US called “Full House” - its theme song is “Everywhere you look” ... considering how well-known the show is, it baffles my mind that people are not aware of this common construction.

Everywhere you look, everywhere you go
There's a heart (there's a heart), a hand to hold onto
Everywhere you look, everywhere you go
There's a face of somebody who needs you
Everywhere you look

Language using such a construction is not supposed to be a statement of fact. Why the moderators took it as such in this case is beyond me.

 

[Stephen.R]

Yes and it’s in the op best interest to ensure what they are saying is clear…no matter the phraseology.

The wording of the original post in question wasn’t even used in the request for sources.

no amount of “ensuring” will prevent someone from deliberately misrepresenting something you say, if they want to.

 

[ipponrg]

The English language is quite clear in this case. I encourage you to read about the “generic you” I posted earlier. Read that, and it is beyond obvious that: 1. @ericgtr12 was using this form and 2. this form is a generalized statement, not a claim of fact.

The second poster misconstrued the original poster’s statement, created a straw man version of it, and attacked that. The moderators then moderated the original post based on the straw man.

There was a very popular TV show in the US called “Full House” - its theme song is “Everywhere you look” ... considering how well-known the show is, it baffles my mind that people are not aware of this common construction.


Language using such a construction is not supposed to be a statement of fact. Why the moderators took it as such in this case is beyond me.

This has happened to me before as well where something was entirely misconstrued by the replying poster because they were triggered.

All I will say is we should all take classes in how to express an opinion on this board. I've sometimes reminded myself to preface something with "In my opinion" or "This is just my perspective" if it's an opinion. The moderators won't even let you debate against them.

The silver lining in all this is I'm always learning how to write a bit better in a professional environment when it comes to making my point clearer.

 

[I7guy]

The English language is quite clear in this case. I encourage you to read about the “generic you” I posted earlier. Read that, and it is beyond obvious that: 1. @ericgtr12 was using this form and 2. this form is a generalized statement, not a claim of fact.

The second poster misconstrued the original poster’s statement, created a straw man version of it, and attacked that. The moderators then moderated the original post based on the straw man.

There was a very popular TV show in the US called “Full House” - its theme song is “Everywhere you look” ... considering how well-known the show is, it baffles my mind that people are not aware of this common construction.


Language using such a construction is not supposed to be a statement of fact. Why the moderators took it as such in this case is beyond me.

So going forward the “everyone you” construct should be considered an opinion? This conversation is doomed due to the same reasons conversations about moderation policy are doomed.

“everyone you talk to says vaccines don’t work”. Okay opinion from now on.

The wording of the original post in question wasn’t even used in the request for sources.

no amount of “ensuring” will prevent someone from deliberately misrepresenting something you say, if they want to.

Talking about a citation that has morphed into a discussion about phraseology in the English language.

 

[dukebound85]

I think the threshold for reporting posts needs to be a result of obvious and blatant rule violating.

This discussion on the mere semantics and meanings of words on whether a post should be moderated or not is frankly ridiculous and eats into the mods' time (mostly all volunteering by the way)

I also feel that there should be repercussions from those that abuse the post reporting feature.

There seems to be a group of pseudo-mods that seem to have taken a "mod-wannabe" role/behavior in their responses despite not being a moderator. This should also be addressed in my opinion as frankly these responses do not typically aid in discussion from my observations.

 

[I7guy]

I think the threshold for reporting posts needs to be a result of obvious and blatant rule violating.

This discussion on the mere semantics and meanings of words on whether a post should be moderated or not is frankly ridiculous.

I also feel that there should be repercussions from those that abuse the post reporting feature.

There seems to be a group of pseudo-mods that seem to have taken a "mod-wannabe" role/behavior in their responses despite not being a moderator. This should also be addressed in my opinion as frankly these responses do not typically aid in discussion from my observations.

The flip side is don’t require citations and don’t moderate posts unless they are an obvious hoax that causes immediate bodily harm.

 

[Stephen.R]

In my opinion most reasonable people would say that if they are told "X will prevent Y" that this is intended as an absolute statement

as you seem to trust the CDC’s word:
From https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/larc/index.html:

LARC is safe to use, does not require taking a pill each day or doing something each time before having sex, and can prevent pregnancy for 3 to 10 years, depending on the method. Less than 1% of LARC users would become pregnant during the first year of use.

They seem to be saying that something is “prevented” by something, but not 100% of the time.

If you honestly think any use of the word “prevents” is unconditional and absolute unless it explicitly defines percentages, I suggest you never read the fine print of any “preventative” product because the shock may just be too much for you.

 

[AutomaticApple]

There seems to be a group of pseudo-mods that seem to have taken a "mod-wannabe" role/behavior in their responses despite not being a moderator. This should also be addressed in my opinion as frankly these responses do not typically aid in discussion from my observations.

To you, has that been made clear in this thread?

 

[ericgtr12]

At the core here is what happened:

1) I made the following statement:
In every single one of these cases, these people would benefit from a trusted medical professional utilizing his site and status to give them the facts. Every doctor you talk to will recommend the vaccine, sadly on this site you're doing absolutely nothing to insert fact based scientific data and instead are letting people with a political view insert ambiguity. It's a shame.

2) A user who is on my ignore list apparently said (which I had no idea of at this time):
Please provide citation for this claim that 100% of doctors recommend the vaccine. My cardiologist told me, and I quote "oh, you had covid, then you don't need to get it, you have the antibodies". I didn't listen and got it anyway but that's what I was told.

3) I was none the wiser to this reply.

4) Weaselboy sends me this (the first I had any clue)
ericgtr12,

This is a reminder from the MacRumors moderator team.

If you claim that something's a fact, back it up with a source. If you can't produce evidence when someone asks you to cite your sources, we may remove your posts. If you started the thread, then we may remove or close the thread.

I'm referring the the comment "Every doctor you talk to will recommend the vaccine..." which was challenged by another member in the thread.

Your post may have been edited or removed based on the Forum Rules.

For further information and instructions, see the Reminders section of the Moderation FAQ. Do not reply to (or report) a moderation message like this one. If you have questions, comments, or complaints about moderation, use the Contact Form.

5) Upon getting this warning I go and look at my post and the words "Every doctor you talk to will recommend the vaccine" are gone. Additionally, I used the "show ignored content" to see the post Weaselboy was talking about and it was gone (presumably deleted) as well.

6) I got no other contact from Weaselboy, just this single one.

Question to @annk @Doctor Q and @WildCowboy how else could I have handled this better so I'll know next time?

 

[triptolemus]

Couple of points of interest.

XenForo in its default installation does not allow Admins or Mods to easily view user's ignore lists or view related stats. However, there is an add on for it. You can even create a public "Most Ignored" list. This would be a fabulous addition to any forum!

Do admins/mods edit posts silently? In other words, do they hide "Posted last edited by..." and the reason from appearing in the thread. Blindly or silently editing posts seems sinister.

There are a handful of users in the Feedback forum who speak for the staff and stir up trouble. Maybe let the staff speak for themselves? "I'm not staff, but..." is pointless.

Have a nice day.

 

[Stephen.R]

Talking about a citation that has morphed into a discussion about phraseology in the English language.

Tbh that’s kind of irrelevant to what I said. You said a person has to “ensure” they’re clear what they mean, and I’m telling you that a determined person will find a way to misrepresent what was said, regardless of what you “ensure”.

 

[SuperMatt]

So going forward the “everyone you” construct should be considered an opinion? This conversation is doomed due to the same reasons conversations about moderation policy are doomed.

“everyone you talk to says vaccines don’t work”. Okay opinion from now on.

Talking about a citation that has morphed into a discussion about phraseology in the English language.

It’s not opinion “from now on.” That construction has always has been a generalized statement. It never has been a statement of fact. I cited “Everywhere you look” because it is the most common example of the construction, and I assume most people have heard that phrase before, and know it is not meant literally. So... I have no idea why this construction was considered by anybody to be a statement of fact... it never should have been in the first place. Just google “Everywhere you look” if you have the time and you’ll see many articles using that phrase in the title. I believe it will quickly become obvious that it’s not intended as a literal statement.

 

[ericgtr12]

Couple of points of interest.

XenForo in its default installation does not allow Admins or Mods to easily view user's ignore lists or view related stats. However, there is an add on for it. You can even create a public "Most Ignored" list. This would be a fabulous addition to any forum!

Do admins/mods edit posts silently? In other words, do they hide "Posted last edited by..." and the reason from appearing in the thread. Blindly or silently editing posts seems sinister.

There are a handful of users in the Feedback forum who speak for the staff and stir up trouble. Maybe let the staff speak for themselves? "I'm not staff, but..." is pointless.

Have a nice day.

Good point and I am aware of this with Xenforo as well. However, if a mod wanted to look through my post history in this forum and see how many times this user has tried to engage me without my responses they'll definitely know. It's why I put them on ignore to begin with months ago.

The only exceptions I make to users on my ignore list are when it's something of interest and then I'll click the "show ignored content" but it's not often.

 

[triptolemus]

Is that possibly in the realm of reality?

Before anyone asks to cite this in reality or doubts this is possible, this is the interface for a mod to edit a post in XF.

 

[icanhazmac]

I have no idea why this construction was considered by anybody to be a statement of fact... it never should have been in the first place.

Perhaps this is why a citation or clarification was asked for? It is unfortunate the member in question chose not to see it.